These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36698054)

  • 21. Accuracy of genomic selection for a sib-evaluated trait using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships.
    Vela-Avitúa S; Meuwissen TH; Luan T; Ødegård J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):9. PubMed ID: 25888184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Beyond genomic selection: The animal model strikes back (one generation)!
    Cantet RJC; García-Baccino CA; Rogberg-Muñoz A; Forneris NS; Munilla S
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Jun; 134(3):224-231. PubMed ID: 28508480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Genomic selection of milk fatty acid composition in Sarda dairy sheep: Effect of different phenotypes and relationship matrices on heritability and breeding value accuracy.
    Cesarani A; Gaspa G; Correddu F; Cellesi M; Dimauro C; Macciotta NPP
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 Apr; 102(4):3189-3203. PubMed ID: 30799105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Reparametrization-based estimation of genetic parameters in multi-trait animal model using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation.
    Mathew B; Holand AM; Koistinen P; Léon J; Sillanpää MJ
    Theor Appl Genet; 2016 Feb; 129(2):215-25. PubMed ID: 26582509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Average information residual maximum likelihood in practice.
    Gilmour AR
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2019 Jul; 136(4):262-272. PubMed ID: 31247685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Integrating Nonadditive Genomic Relationship Matrices into the Study of Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits.
    Nazarian A; Gezan SA
    J Hered; 2016 Mar; 107(2):153-62. PubMed ID: 26712858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A fast indirect method to compute functions of genomic relationships concerning genotyped and ungenotyped individuals, for diversity management.
    Colleau JJ; Palhière I; Rodríguez-Ramilo ST; Legarra A
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Dec; 49(1):87. PubMed ID: 29191178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The effect of including genomic relationships in the estimation of genetic parameters of functional traits in pigs.
    Aasmundstad T; Andersen-Ranberg I; Nordbø Ø; Meuwissen T; Vangen O; Grindflek E
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Oct; 132(5):386-91. PubMed ID: 25788294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Ancestral Relationships Using Metafounders: Finite Ancestral Populations and Across Population Relationships.
    Legarra A; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Aguilar I; Misztal I
    Genetics; 2015 Jun; 200(2):455-68. PubMed ID: 25873631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information.
    Forni S; Aguilar I; Misztal I
    Genet Sel Evol; 2011 Jan; 43(1):1. PubMed ID: 21208445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix.
    Misztal I; Legarra A; Aguilar I
    J Dairy Sci; 2014; 97(6):3943-52. PubMed ID: 24679933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular.
    Fernando RL; Cheng H; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Oct; 48(1):80. PubMed ID: 27788669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction.
    Masuda Y; Tsuruta S; Bermann M; Bradford HL; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2021 Feb; 99(2):. PubMed ID: 33493284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Inversion of a part of the numerator relationship matrix using pedigree information.
    Faux P; Gengler N
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Dec; 45(1):45. PubMed ID: 24313900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A comparison of identity-by-descent and identity-by-state matrices that are used for genetic evaluation and estimation of variance components.
    Fernando RL; Cheng H; Sun X; Garrick DJ
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Jun; 134(3):213-223. PubMed ID: 28508481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Variance estimates are similar using pedigree or genomic relationships with or without the use of metafounders or the algorithm for proven and young animals1.
    Aldridge MN; Vandenplas J; Bergsma R; Calus MPL
    J Anim Sci; 2020 Mar; 98(3):. PubMed ID: 31955195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Leveraging low-density crossbred genotypes to offset crossbred phenotypes and their impact on purebred predictions.
    Leite NG; Chen CY; Herring WO; Holl J; Tsuruta S; Lourenco D
    J Anim Sci; 2022 Dec; 100(12):. PubMed ID: 36309902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. "Bending" and beyond: Better estimates of quantitative genetic parameters?
    Meyer K
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2019 Jul; 136(4):243-251. PubMed ID: 31247680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A single-step genomic model with direct estimation of marker effects.
    Liu Z; Goddard ME; Reinhardt F; Reents R
    J Dairy Sci; 2014 Sep; 97(9):5833-50. PubMed ID: 25022678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Employing a Monte Carlo algorithm in Newton-type methods for restricted maximum likelihood estimation of genetic parameters.
    Matilainen K; Mäntysaari EA; Lidauer MH; Strandén I; Thompson R
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e80821. PubMed ID: 24339886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.